FR 2025-01524

The document from the Federal Register is an announcement from the Department of Labor, specifically concerning an information collection request related to safety measures in underground coal mines. This initiative is being undertaken by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), and it focuses on the implementation of refuge alternatives—designated emergency shelters utilized during mine emergencies when escape is not feasible.

General Summary

The document serves as a formal notice, opening a channel for public comment on the proposed information collection. This action is part of fulfilling obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which requires such collections to be reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Public comments are instrumental in assessing the effectiveness and utility of this regulatory measure. The deadline for submitting feedback is February 24, 2025.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One notable issue is the use of technical jargon such as "ICR" (Information Collection Request) and "PRA" (Paperwork Reduction Act). This terminology may not be immediately comprehensible to individuals who are not familiar with such regulatory language. Additionally, while the document provides instructions on how to submit comments, the guidance might benefit from further clarity to enhance accessibility for the general public.

Furthermore, the document mentions an "other costs burden" of $17 without detailing what these costs entail, which could lead to confusion. A brief explanation of this figure would contribute to better transparency.

The document cites the U.S. Code (44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D)) as an authority for the notice, which may not be informative to those unfamiliar with legal references. Simplifying or explaining this reference could enhance understanding.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, particularly those residing in mining communities, this document represents a step towards ensuring improved safety measures for miners. The initiative underscores the importance of having reliable refuge alternatives, which can save lives during emergencies. Public participation in the comment process provides an opportunity for citizens to contribute their perspectives, potentially influencing how these safety protocols are shaped and implemented.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For miners and mining companies, the completion and implementation of this information collection can have significant implications. On one hand, enhanced safety measures reflect positively on workplace safety, valuing miners' lives and ensuring better preparedness for emergencies. On the other hand, companies may face additional compliance costs and operational adjustments. However, these changes can also foster a safer working environment and possibly mitigate future liabilities or accidents.

In summary, while the document presents a clear initiative aimed at improving mine safety through the use of refuge alternatives, there are opportunities to clarify its content for broader public comprehension. Encouraging public feedback will aid in refining these safety measures, ultimately benefiting miners, their families, and associated stakeholders in the coal mining industry.

The document titled "Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal Mines" provides insights into a financial reference made concerning the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). This document pertains to an Information Collection Request (ICR) reviewed under the guidelines of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

Summary of Financial Reference

Within the document, the Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden is specified as $17. This amount presumably represents additional costs associated with the information collection requirement for refuge alternatives in underground coal mines. However, the document does not detail what this figure encompasses or how it was calculated.

Analysis and Contextualization

Lack of Detail

The reference to the $17 cost burden is notably brief and lacks elaboration. The document does not clarify what these "other costs" entail, whether they represent administrative, operational, or any miscellaneous expenses. Such ambiguity can lead to questions about the accuracy or the scope of financial implications inherent in the ICR. For individuals or businesses involved, understanding the breakdown of this cost might be crucial for planning and compliance.

Relevance to Issues

One of the identified issues in the document is a lack of clarity regarding technical and financial terms. The mention of $17 without context exemplifies this challenge, as readers unfamiliar with the intricacies of such federal requests could misconstrue or overlook its significance. A more comprehensive explanation would aid stakeholders in identifying the areas these costs apply to and assessing their relevance or impact on operations.

Importance of Clarity

Ensuring transparency in financial references helps in demystifying the objectives and outcomes of regulatory efforts. Providing a detailed explanation of financial allocations or burdens can enhance stakeholders' trust and facilitate more informed public commentary. In this particular case, clarifying what the $17 amount covers would not only satisfy financial curiosity but also encourage a more thorough evaluation during the public comment period.

Conclusion

The document's reference to an estimated annual cost of $17 demands further elucidation. While it presents an ostensibly minimal financial impact, the absence of detail can obscure understanding and impede meaningful engagement with the information collection process. By framing such financial details in clearer terms, agencies can fortify transparency and engagement with affected parties.